Talk:Right-to-work law/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Scare quotes in first sentence

I have repeatedly removed quotation marks around the article's title. I would ask any who support adding quotation marks to provide a reference to wiki style guides that suggest putting quotation marks around article titles in regard to legislation. --DrCruse (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The question is why **you** busy yourself with repeatedly removing them. They are there to highlight the fact (clearly stated as well in the article) that such statutes have nothing whatever to do with a right to work. If the title referred to a specific piece of legislation, you would be correct in removing the quotes. But this article refers to a general class of deliberately misnamed legislation, so the quotes are appropriate and essential. — Aldaron • T/C 15:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that these laws are "deliberately misnamed" is your opinion. It's fine if that's in the article under criticisms, but it is not a matter of fact that these laws are "deliberately misnamed". Until you demonstrate why as a matter of fact or wiki policy this needs to be done, I am going to keep the quotes off. --DrCruse (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Aldaron put bold tags around the word "repeatedly" in my post above. I'm not sure why s/he would do this. Also has continued to revert the article without engaging here on the talk page. --DrCruse (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the tags ("repeatedly" is your word). And the engagement here has been sufficient: your assertion that the deliberate misnaming of these statutes is merely an opinion was dismissed without comment. — Aldaron • T/C 12:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As you can see in this edit you put bold around a word I used. Not sure why. You are in no position to dismiss what I'm asking for "without comment". Please act in good faith and provide an actual reason beyond just "I don't like how this legislation is named". --DrCruse (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you see a need to describe it as deliberately misnamed, you must cite a source that shows it is misnamed. Simply "knowing" that it's misnamed makes your edit constitute original research, which is against guidelines. Even if one assumes the name is intentionally misleading, the quotes would still be inappropriate, as "Right-to-Work" is the common name for the type of legislation. Misleading or exaggerated names are a common tactic, but injecting quotation marks is a form of commentary, not appropriate address. Look at the Ministries of Nineteen Eighty-Four for comparison, where the ministries are all intentionally, clearly and stated by their author to be named dishonestly, but the names are the names, so no quotation marks are added. Merennulli (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Wisconsin needs to be included in the graphic

As of today a federal court has reinstated the law in this state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambchowder (talk • contribs) 17:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Unemployment Insurance?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some familiarity with RTW laws. This section of the introductory paragraph seems irrelevant, dense, and incorrect:

"These statutes are not listed under US labor and employment laws as of May 2016, but have been operational with local employment hearing judges for over a half decade. Right-to-work laws were reported in all US states in regard to unemployment insurance hearings in which the employer was seeking to bar the employee from receiving these legal benefits after termination. Public policy exceptions have been devised by attorneys to seek to overturn the broad and unannounced sweep of these laws in the US. Local appellate judges have not indicated that they will allow public policy to be used on behalf of the former employees - most of whom were employees under their health insurance when injured (e.g., mental health parity laws)."

I'm thinking that it should be deleted, but if someone can explain it to me, I'm happy to leave it. MKil (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)MKil

I agree with "irrelevant and dense", so probably unnecessary - especially in the lead. The opening of this article in general is unclear and unreadable. I realize the topic is a contentious one in political terms, but surely these laws can be described clearly in one paragraph? Huw Powell (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

similar laws in other countries?

There should be a section about similar "right-to-work" laws in other countries (though they might not be called that). I think Germany has them. 143.167.71.128 (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

New Mexico County Level Right-To-Work Laws Prohibited

On March 27th New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a law prohibiting counties from passing their own right-to-work laws. Article here: https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/03/29/lujan-grisham-signs-bill-invalidating-counties-right-to-work-laws/

The map needs to be updated to remove the designation of New Mexico as a state with local right-to-work laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapknof (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

West Virginia Right-to-Work Law Overturned

On February 28th a Circuit Court in West Virginia struck down their right-to-work law (article here: https://www.wtrf.com/news/west-virginia-headlines/west-virginia-right-to-work-law-overturned/1818674782). The map of states with right-to-work laws needs to be updated to reflect that West Virginia's law is no longer in effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapknof (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

 DoneTerrorist96 (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That ruling was stayed and the Right to Work law in West Virginia is still in effect. Please update the map. 98.190.223.50 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)